You can't compare Tidal to Qobuz because you don't know what recordings you're hearing. This has nothing to do with Tidal or Qobuz, as far as I know that's true of every streaming service. And it is another variable, the most important one.
People know they're getting MQA when they sign up for Tidal. It's hard to understand the hysteria, complaints, and unrighteous indignation regarding MQA. Nobodys holding a gun to your heads, fellas. If you don't like it, move along. Yes compression is dumb, yes it's lossy, yes it's high res, yes it sounds good.
Where I live Qobuz is not available, Tidal Hifi Plus is cheap. I have Deezer Hifi for fills and Redbook albums that might not be on Tidal. There is no other Redbook streaming available here, and not even Deezer Hifi desktop is bitperfect. So I use a streamer to get bitperfect from Deezer.
I think that Tidal has a lot to benefit from giving info about the origin of the master of the album that's being streamed. It makes the user feeling closer to the music...like when you buy a cd or a digital copy. Room took advantage of that and did good.
For my situation..I care more about if my gear is capable (after the firmware update on the zen stream) to completely or partially decode mqa. I asked that ifi in another thread too but never got an answer as far as I remember.
So if someone from ifi keeps an eye on this thread I would appreciate an answer...
I get that tidal is doing business with mqa and its marketing is directing the efforts on the mqa products..but....what I don't get and to be honest I don't really like...is that they don't offer a non mqa version of every album so someone can choose.
Having said that its not that mqa sounds bad to me but they should offer a choice. I also live in a country where qobuz is not available and I doubt it will ever be...and I do appreciate what tidal has to offer but there is always room to be better..why choose to disappoint those who don't like mqa? Why not offer both? Bandwidth costs? They offer 2 or more mqa versions of an album as we said earlier...
I believe that Tidal must not be an mqa only service...
"I am not pleased with the inability to play standard, non MQA Flac on Tidal. The sonic differences could come down to preferences but for now content is winning as much as I don't like the deception."
It plays the mqa file without the unfolding process. The only way to get the Flac file is to play an album with no mqa label. Now I don't know how much different is the mqa file from the Flac file of the same master of the same album...I can hear a difference with my system.
The record labels own the music and they decide which version they want to publish on Tidal. Some major conglomerates such as Warner and Sony have chosen to replace their albums on Tidal with MQA versions. It is possible that Tidal encourages the practice, but it is under the control of each record label.
You can't compare Tidal to Qobuz because you don't know what recordings you're hearing. This has nothing to do with Tidal or Qobuz, as far as I know that's true of every streaming service. And it is another variable, the most important one.
People know they're getting MQA when they sign up for Tidal. It's hard to understand the hysteria, complaints, and unrighteous indignation regarding MQA. Nobodys holding a gun to your heads, fellas. If you don't like it, move along. Yes compression is dumb, yes it's lossy, yes it's high res, yes it sounds good.
Where I live Qobuz is not available, Tidal Hifi Plus is cheap. I have Deezer Hifi for fills and Redbook albums that might not be on Tidal. There is no other Redbook streaming available here, and not even Deezer Hifi desktop is bitperfect. So I use a streamer to get bitperfect from Deezer.
Having been a Qobuz & Tidal user for 2 years, I think you can compare both. Qobuz and Tidal obviously select the Masters they think is best for their platform (Tidal who then from this create their MQA remaster: compared to Qobuz who select the best hi-res version to stream). Purely, from this you can compare. It's pointless doing this from the angle of 'what master did they use?' as you'll never know.
I have a couple of MQA renderers (dragonfly black and Ztella) and full MQA decoders (LG V30 & V40) and I can honestly say, IMO, some Tidal Masters sound better than their Qobuz counterpart and vice-versa.
Not everyone signed up to Tidal for MQA based on the different streaming tiers and this left customers a choice between listening to MQA and/or redbook versions of albums. However, Tidal is now guilty of either forcing people (who don't have renderers and/or decoders) to listen to the non fully unfolded MQA version as, in the case of Pink Floyd's and Coldplay's catalogue, their redbook albums were completely replaced with the MQA remasters. You cannot listen to any redbook version of a single Pink Floyd album.
This is fitting in with MQA's marketing strategy. I have nothing against MQA - some albums soubd really good; however, I am not liking the way they are forcing themselves within tidal, taking away Tidal's original redbook files. At 19.99 a month, which is close to double a monthly Qobuz subscription, customers should have a choice. Also more and more albums are being rattled out in MQA at such a rate, you question whether provenance is really a thing (MQA must have millions of staff to check back on what ADCs were used, etc.). Coupled with this, there are more and more MQA releases that are OK, but not superior. I tend to find its only some 70s recordings that have been remastered in MQA that sound better (possibly because the provenance checks - as mentioned above - have been done). Who knows though and who ever will?
I have now left Tidal and sticking purely to Qobuz as for the reasons and pricing mentioned above, I cannot justify having both. I have purchased MQA studio albuns of those I like (from High Res Audio - MQA sudio label). Sorted.
When I suggested that Tidal include the provanance information for "Master" tracks, I was assuming that they have this info in a database, else how do they certify the MQA level (studio, artist approved, etc). I know, making assumptions makes ....
Tidal and MQA's policy about being obscure about the whole MQA process is a turn off for many (see multiple threads all over the web).
I wish we had Qobuz here in Canada so I could compare for myself.
When I suggested that Tidal include the provanance information for "Master" tracks, I was assuming that they have this info in a database, else how do they certify the MQA level (studio, artist approved, etc). I know, making assumptions makes ....
Tidal and MQA's policy about being obscure about the whole MQA process is a turn off for many (see multiple threads all over the web).
I wish we had Qobuz here in Canada so I could compare for myself.
As was said, no streaming service provides this. And as was also said, Tidal doesn't certify anything, the music companies do.
This thread is about enjoying various Tidal masters. Instead, disguntled people with nothing better to do, most of whom don't even have Tidal, spend their valuable time thread-crapping and bashing Tidal and MQA. It's amazing this site tolerates it. But, you all go into my ignore list. Your pointless whining is not worth reading.
One of the things I quite enjoy about Tidal is that they seem to unlock new releases on GMT, compared to Qobuz which I think is local midnight... there were a few electronic albums released this spring, that I ended up listening to first on MQA because of this. They are both upconversions as far as I can tell (the qobuz version is 44 kHz, vs. 88 kHz on renderer/UAPP), but I quite enjoy them:
One of the things I quite enjoy about Tidal is that they seem to unlock new releases on GMT, compared to Qobuz which I think is local midnight... there were a few electronic albums released this spring, that I ended up listening to first on MQA because of this. They are both upconversions as far as I can tell (the qobuz version is 44 kHz, vs. 88 kHz on renderer/UAPP), but I quite enjoy them:
The record labels own the music and they decide which version they want to publish on Tidal. Some major conglomerates such as Warner and Sony have chosen to replace their albums on Tidal with MQA versions. It is possible that Tidal encourages the practice, but it is under the control of each record label.
Are you sure that's true? I was under the impression that the album is encoded to mqa (directly from the master tape according to the marketing) and then is streamed to tidal...I mean I was under the impression that tidal decides. Maybe I don't know how it works. In any case it would be nice to have at least information about what master are we listen to.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
